Search

The global pulp and paper industry is one of the four main drivers of deforestation worldwide, according to environmental groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists. But one player in the industry, Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), says it has made significant advances in recent years, and is pushing the global timber sector to do the same.

Across its landholdings in Indonesia and China, the company insists it is implementing both policies and technologies to prevent deforestation within its supply chain.

Recently, TriplePundit caught up with Aida Greenbury, managing director and chief of sustainability at APP, from her office in Jakarta. She shared some of the company’s recent milestones, as well as ideas on how the global pulp and paper can help stop deforestation.

TriplePundit: Let’s start with some of the global initiatives designed to fight deforestation. Is the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) working? Are the criteria realistic or just too simplified?

Aida Greenbury: We should evaluate the NYDF’s success based on what it is: an instrument to facilitate high-level political commitment, and a voluntary and non-binding international declaration ... to halt global deforestation.

In this sense, it is indeed working in that, as a result since it was first endorsed in 2014, over 190 governments, sub-national governments, multinational companies, indigenous communities, and NGOs have committed to halt deforestation and are actively working towards that goal. But sure, more can still be done.

APP is still the only integrated pulp and paper company committed to the NYDF, which shouldn’t be the case. All private companies active in land use should be committed to ending deforestation, work together to achieve set goals and targets. And while it is true that the goals and associated criteria may seem ‘simple’, they allow signatories a basis from which to delve into the details and adapt them to specific national and local contexts. Each goal is accompanied by associated indicators which provide clear guidance on how to achieve the goals.

What has always remained challenging is not the criteria, but turning commitments into implementation. In the latest progress report issued in 2016, the majority of companies assessed had yet to take the essential steps to turn their commitments into actions. Since APP signed the declaration, we have made significant progress on our Forest Conservation Policy - which we just celebrated the 4^th anniversary of - but can’t forget that we too still have a long way to go in finding the solutions that work to truly end natural forest loss across the globe.

3p: Where are we today with zero deforestation?

AG: The good thing today is that we are seeing an acceleration of zero deforestation commitments being released by companies worldwide, including those in the four key industries of timber/pulp & paper, palm, soy, and cattle. More than 400 companies have made over 700 pledges to reduce their impacts on forests and the rights of forest communities. More and more companies are making voluntary commitments to forest conservation through the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF), the NYDF, the Tropical Forest Alliance and many other initiatives.

However, while it is encouraging that so many companies have established new policies, the challenge comes in ensuring that we’re all talking about the same thing when we say “zero deforestation.” You see the use of terms like “zero illegal deforestation,” “zero net deforestation,” and, of course “zero deforestation.” How companies actually interpret these terms not only has huge implications for actual impacts on forests, but also on the credibility of the concept overall.

One approach that APP has found useful in navigating this space is the High Carbon Stock Approach, which includes a methodology for distinguishing between forest areas that should be protected and non-forest areas that may be considered for production. As the co-Chair of the High Carbon Stock Approach Steering Committee, I can speak first hand to the fact that this approach represents a unified framework, endorsed by a range of stakeholders including governments, private sector, NGOs, and leading academics.

3p: What are the challenges in adopting a zero-deforestation policy?

AG: I would come back again here to the lack of an agreed definition on what a “zero deforestation” policy should include. Other challenges include setting realistic milestones and communicating those milestones effectively with stakeholders.

There is often pressure from various stakeholders to achieve targets overnight, but to truly end deforestation, the full range of causes must be assessed, followed by integrated land use planning to identify how to implement changes among a complex web of land users. I have always said that we have to learn to walk before we can run in this process, and that we will probably stumble a few times along the way.

With the development of APP’s Integrated Sustainable Forest Management Plans, we’ve taken three years, but as a result we’ve also achieved consensus among all land users and have achieved an increase in forest conservation and restoration areas of up to 35 percent in some forest concessions.

3p: What milestones have been accomplished in 2016 by APP and by the movements towards zero deforestation?

AG: APP’s landmark Forest Conservation Policy, which we launched in 2013, marked its fourth anniversary this year. Four years in, we have accomplished a lot, though not without our fair share of challenges.

At the very core, we have been able to achieve the first commitment of our policy – that no deforestation would take place by APP or its suppliers. We’ve done this by conducting Integrated Sustainable Forest Management Plans in each of our concessions, which include plans for the management of each concession on areas for conservation, production, and community use and infrastructure.

In the last year, we also identified areas and completed HCV (High Conservation Value), HCS (High Carbon Stock), and SIA (Social Impact Assessments) for new development, and completed spatial planning for all 38 pulpwood suppliers’ concessions to better define land use.

We have also successfully rolled out our Integrated Forestry and Farming System (IFFS) program in 60 villages (as of December 2016), which provides a means for community engagement based on agro-ecological practices and climate smart agriculture. Through this we have been able to work with communities to address the root causes of deforestation and help improve the livelihoods of communities and decrease pressure on forests for agricultural expansion. We will continue unrolling this program with the ultimate goal of reaching the 500 villages located in our concessions or immediately adjacent to them.

We cannot avoid tackling the issue of fires as part of our zero-deforestation work, as climate change and slash and burn practices still used by some continue to pose a threat to forests in and around our concessions. In 2016, we spent over US$20 million just on fire prevention, and have focused intensively on preparation, and early response as well to. As a result, last year, we successfully avoided uncontrollable fires in all of our concessions and those of our suppliers.

Additionally, as part of my work as co-chair of the High Carbon Stock Approach (HCSA), another milestone in 2016 was to agree on the convergence between the HCSA and HCS+ approaches, meaning a single standard for the implementation of zero deforestation commitments across different commodities and countries – an exciting step forward in standardizing the implementation and evaluation of companies’ commitments.

3p: What’s holding companies back from adopting zero deforestation?

AG: The rate at which new company policies are being released is too low to meet 2020 targets – there has been an increase of only 5 percent in the last three years in the number of companies releasing policies for commodities to which they are exposed. There are two problems holding companies back: a blueprint on how to achieve zero deforestation, and illustrating the clear business case for zero deforestation.

On a blueprint that companies can use to achieve zero deforestation, this is something we at APP are enthusiastic about: sharing our experiences, and continually try to engage with others working on this goal to benefit from their knowledge and experiences as well. The Asia Pacific Rainforest Partnership is a regional initiative to share experiences in halting deforestation, and we are proud to serve as Chair of the Private Sector Roundtable where we’ve aimed to contribute to the documentation of these lessons over the last year. When companies can see concrete examples of how zero deforestation is achievable, they will be more inclined to jump on board.

However, we still need to definitively show that the costs in adopting zero deforestation can result in greater returns for the business – be that through access to markets, better licence to operate, or such advantages such as reduced risk in the supply chain. By reframing the conversation to reflect producers’ interests, companies can be encouraged to adopt zero deforestation commitments that will produce a return on investment. We need to be better about showing how zero deforestation is worth it for companies’ bottom lines.

One thing that can help in this regard is support from governments through public procurement policies which require zero deforestation, but also incorporating premiums for zero deforestation produced products, which currently don’t exist in the market. It is the primary producers – often small and medium enterprises – that bear the largest burden in achieving zero deforestation and are often not supported by retailers or large corporate buyers.

In order to show exactly how zero deforestation policies are good for business, there must be a better understanding of the value of natural capital across the landscapes where businesses are operating. By fully accounting for the value of ecosystems services – including species habitat, water, carbon, and soil fertility, among others – the business rationale for protecting key areas will be strengthened. An understanding of natural capital values will also help to facilitate access to new sources of finance directed towards climate, biodiversity, land degradation, and other natural resource related objectives. Bringing in additional sources of finance will help to ensure the long-term sustainability of zero-deforestation commitments as part of commercial investments.

3p: Timber/pulp and paper has been described as one of the big 4 “deforesters” worldwide (along with beef, soy, and palm oil). What is your response to that, as a leading pulp and paper company? What would you like to see your competitors do?

AG: It’s true – these four industries are traditionally considered the world’s biggest deforesters, particularly when looking at tropical forests. For a long time, we all thought that the extractive model worked, and that agriculture took precedence over retaining natural forest. This way of thinking is still present in many emerging economies with tropical forests, from South America to Southeast Asia.

Though the private sector and government are increasingly pledging zero deforestation, agriculture still accounts for 73 percent of deforestation in tropical and sub-tropical countries. This means that we need to address agricultural production needs if we ever want to effectively tackle deforestation. Unless consumption patterns change in industrialized countries and emerging economies, the demand for agricultural production is only set to rise, and we will have to find integrated solutions for land use to deal with these changes.

So, I’d like to see our competitors and all those active in land use jump on board with us in implementing a landscape approach to integrate land use planning, so we can achieve environmental, economic, and social objectives of all stakeholders. In 2013 APP committed to turning its story around, but we can’t do it alone. We have had to look beyond our own concessions to tackle deforestation more broadly, knowing that not doing so would have a direct impact on our business.

3p: So, what’s next?

AG: What’s next is quite clear: We need action and we need dollars backing those actions. Every stakeholder needs to realize the urgency of this issue and the commitment that it will take to truly end deforestation, and step in to play their part. This is not an individual problem, and 2017 is the year for action and implementation.

Image credit: Asia Pulp & Paper

California has long been seen as a trendsetter on environmental issues, and one of the Golden State's key policies is its cap-and-trade program. Launched in early 2012, the program requires carbon-intensive companies to purchase permits that allow them to release greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

For the most part, this cap-and-trade system has been a win-win. While the oil industry and its allies would prefer to see more free permits in the California market, they view cap-and-trade as a far more market-friendly alternative than what many companies see as onerous regulations.

But some industry groups still object to the cap-and-trade program, and they set off a long legal fight in making their case that the emissions permit auction system is really a tax. And in California, tax measures must past a “super-majority,” or two-thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature. That did not occur when the cap-and-trade program became law earlier this decade; hence the litigation.

But in a verdict made by a state appeals court earlier this month, judges in a 2-1 decision ruled that that contrary to what the plaintiffs in this four-year-old case claimed, the cap-and-trade program was not an unconstitutional tax. “Reducing emissions reduces air pollution,” said the judges writing the majority decision. “Indeed, speculators have bought allowances seeking to profit from their sale, [and] taxes do not attract volunteers.”

In other words, as these emissions permits have value, in addition to the fact that companies are not forced to participate in the program, the cap-and-trade program does not qualify as a tax.

Nevertheless, despite some instances of speculation, the murky future of the cap-and-trade system had dissuaded companies from participating in the quarterly auctions. Over the past four years, the selling of these emissions allowances had allowed the state to generate $4.4 billion in revenues, much of which was earmarked for the state’s high-speed rail that aims to link San Francisco and Los Angeles. But as noted by the Sacramento Bee, February’s auction only sold $8.2 billion of advance 2020 auctions, and the state had expected to generate about $600 million in auction sales. Uncertainty has spooked many within the energy sector.

In addition, 2020 is when the current cap-and-trade system is scheduled to end. State legislators are keen to extend the program’s life this year, before next year’s midterm elections and 2018 gubernatorial race politics reduce any chance that meaningful legislation on any front can be passed. And despite the appeal’s court ruling on the cap-and-trade program, the litigation’s plaintiffs say they will continue to fight the law until a decision is made by the state’s supreme court. Therefore, legislators do not want to take any chances. While they still have Jerry Brown in power, they want to see a new cap-and-trade bill pass that two-thirds threshold in order to eliminate any legal uncertainty.

That is going to be a tough sell in the legislature, even though Sacramento has a history of horse-trading and deal-sweetening in order to ensure that important legislative bills pass. As Los Angeles Times reporters Melanie Mason and Chris Megerian profiled earlier this week, the legislature spent late nights passing a $52 billion transportation infrastructure plan with a two-thirds majority, with no votes to spare. Pulling a similar rabbit out of the hat in Sacramento yet again could be tough.

Nevertheless, California’s leaders seem keen on putting their thumbs in Donald Trump’s eyes at any prime opportunity. And there is some indication that a new cap-and-trade bill could score some bipartisan support. Furthermore, it is easier to extend current programs rather than draw up a new initiative from scratch. Despite some hiccups, the cap-and-trade program works for most of the state’s stakeholders, but it needs some tweaks in order for it to work for the long term. California may just show once again that it can lead on climate action, even if Washington, D.C. has abdicated that role since Trump took office on January 20.

Image credit: Franco Foloni/Flickr

David Bernhardt is rumored to be a candidate for Deputy Secretary of the Interior. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he was a member of President Donald Trump’s transition team, serving as the head on Interior Department issues. He also worked at Interior from 2001 to 2009.

Bernhardt also worked as an attorney for the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and served as co-chair of its natural resources department. The law firm would earn 200,000 shares of stock in resources company Cadiz, worth about $3 million, if the company is able to complete a water pipeline project in the Mojave desert, according to a 2016 SEC filing.

Los Angeles-based Cadiz has plans to sell water from an aquifer in the Mojave desert. The company owns 34,000 acres in the Cadiz and Fenner valleys, close to the Mojave National Preserve, and proposes to pump up to 50,000 acre-feet, or 16 billion gallons, of groundwater a year for 50 years.

The company would sell the water, which would travel in a 43-mile pipeline from the company’s property to the Colorado River Aqueduct to Southern California agencies. The pipeline will be “buried underground within an active railroad right-of-way that crosses the project area and the aqueduct,” the company wrote on its website.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued guidelines in a 2014 memorandum stating the federal agency would evaluate each proposed use of lands granted to railroad companies to see if the project would “derive from or further a railroad purpose.”

In 2015, James Kenna, the BLM’s state director, wrote in a letter that Cadiz’s plans to build the pipeline fall outside the rights granted by an 1875 law giving the land to the Arizona and California Railroad. That put a brake on the Cadiz pipeline.

The Trump administration recently rescinded those rules, stating on the BLM’s website that “field offices will no longer apply the provisions outlined” in the guidelines.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a statement vowing to “fight this latest effort to push the Cadiz water project through without the proper environmental review.”

In a statement, the senator argued that while the U.S. Geological Survey said the recharge rate in the project area is fewer than 5,000 acre-feet a year and the National Park Service puts it at 4,650 to 7,750 acre-feet a year, Cadiz claimed the area can replenish 32,000 acre-feet annually. 

Courtney Degener, a spokesperson for Cadiz, emailed us to respond to Senator Feinstein's allegations:

While Cadiz Inc. does state that natural recharge is 32,500 acre-feet per year, this number is not hearsay, but actually supported by fact, review and permitting, and based on site specific data, such as field measurements of evaporation. This data was peer reviewed by independent scientists, incorporated into a public review process, then approved by two public agencies and upheld in Court.

Bernhardt and Central California’s unsustainable Westlands Water District

And that's not the only thing about Bernhardt that raises red flags for some. He also represented the Westlands Water District in California’s San Joaquin Valley. It's the largest agricultural water district in the U.S. and is comprised of over 1,000 square miles of farmland in western Fresno and Kings counties. The water Westlands farmers use to irrigate their fields comes from the Sacramento Delta.

Back in 2015, the water district secured water rights, which it first obtained back in 1963, in perpetuity. And as Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times pointed out, “It was all done in secret.”

Westlands owed $350 million to the federal government, the water district's share of the cost of the Central Valley Project which brings water from the Delta. The 2015 deal with the feds erases the debt and puts the burden on the district to dispose of agricultural waste in a safe manner.

Not everyone is happy with the deal. It gives the Westlands permanent rights up to 850,000 acre-feet of water, about 150 percent of the annual water use of Los Angeles, the second most populated city in the U.S.

Westlands inked the deal during one of the worst droughts in California’s history. Much of the state's agricultural production would not be possible without irrigation. Accounting for almost 20 percent of the nation’s irrigated cropland, California grows about half of the produce in the U.S. About 80 percent of water diverted from rivers or pumped groundwater reserves in the golden state is used for agriculture. And about 75 percent of rainfall occurs north of Sacramento while most of the farmland and the population is in the central and southern parts of the state.

It’s a system that is not sustainable. And neither is the Trump administration’s regard for corporate profits over the environment.

Bernhardt already served on the Trump transition team and may just end up back in the Interior Department. His impact is already being felt. Expect more bad decisions that impact water supplies. 

As Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project, told TriplePundit: “If David Bernhardt’s history of carrying water for powerful special interests wasn’t enough to disqualify him from working at Interior, the questions raised by this series of events should put him out of the running altogether.”

He added that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s “claims of being a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist will be a sad joke if he picks this kind of Washington insider to be his right-hand man.”

Image credit: Flickr/Ericka Ekstrom

This article has been updated since it was first published.

Greenpeace USA released its second annual canned tuna rankings this week, bringing both good and bad news. Some companies moved up significantly in the rankings by offering their customers more ethical products. But others faltered.

While the U.S. is the largest canned tuna market in the world, it has “failed miserably to offer responsibly-caught options,” Greenpeace Oceans campaigner David Pinsky told TriplePundit. But he said the latest rankings offer a glimmer of hope that the canned tuna industry can be sustainable.

“This latest ranking is a hopeful sign,” Pinsky told us. “A growing number of retailers are realizing that it's good for business to offer more sustainable and ethical canned tuna.”

Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee and StarKist hold the most market share of American canned tuna. And unfortunately, all three slipped in the Greenpeace rankings.

Chicken of the Sea is owned by Thai Union, the world’s largest tuna company, and it is the third largest U.S. tuna brand. Last year it ranked No. 11 our of 20 companies, but this year it slipped down to No. 14.

According to the sustainability commitment posted on its website, the company has a vision that the seafood industry will respect oceans, protect marine life, and offer “safe and legal employment for millions of people around that world.” However, the company does not address how it will provide responsibly-caught products.

Bumble Bee is the largest shelf-stable seafood company in North America, occupying over a quarter of the U.S. canned tuna market. It came in No. 17 out of 20 on the rankings, down from No. 12 last year.

While Bumble Bee publishes sustainability and social responsibility policies online, plus a way for customers to trace its tuna, Greenpeace says the company's standards “should be stronger." The company offers some responsibly-caught options under its Wild Selections label, but offers none under its flagship brand.

Starkist sells the most canned tuna in the U.S. and it ranks 20th: dead last -- the same as last year. One of the reasons for its poor rating is that the company states on its website that it is “committed to leading the global seafood category by providing great tasting and healthy products that are sourced responsibly.” Yet, it does not explain how it is protecting human rights or taking steps to make sustainable fishing a priority.

“It's now up to Chicken of the Sea and the other big brands to read the writing on the wall and commit to better products and policies that put the oceans and seafood industry workers first,” Pinsky said.

Leaders show the industry what's possible

Wild Planet, American Tuna, Whole Foods and Tri Marine top Greenpeace's rankings, and they show the canned tuna industry what is possible in terms of providing responsibly-caught products.

Wild Planet has stayed at the top of the list for two years in a row. Greenpeace calls Wild Planet “an eco-brand dedicated to greening store shelves and driving industry change,” and ranks all Wild Planet and Sustainable Seas brand canned tuna as ocean safe products. And it has a “strong, implemented sustainable sourcing policy,” according to Greenpeace, plus it offers information about its products online. All of the seafood it sells is pole-and-line or troll caught, two fishing methods that have minimal impact on other marine life.

Wild Planet has updated and strengthened its procurement policy since last year by stating its commitment to social responsibility. The company uses the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program's rankings of seafood as a guide in selecting product sources. Most of its products are rated green by the program, the most sustainable options, and it does not source any red-listed products, which the program ranks as fish to be avoided.

American Tuna is tied with Wild Planet for first place after coming in second last year. Like Wild Planet, all of its products are pole-and-line caught and traceable from source to can. Issuing a public policy increased the company’s rankings from last year to this one, Greenpeace says. On its website, the company states that it does not “source from fishing operations engaged in shark finning or other wasteful fishing practices,” nor will it source from companies that are associated with illegal operations.

Whole Foods moved up from fourth to third place this year. In March, the company became the first U.S. retailer to commit to selling 100 percent sustainable canned tuna. By January 2018, all canned tuna and tuna sold in Whole Foods stores will meet the company's sustainability requirements.

Under the new policy, all canned tuna must be sourced from fisheries that use only pole-and-line or troll catching methods, and be certified sustainable by either the Marine Stewardship Council or rated green or yellow by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Safina Center. Every supplier is required to use software called Trace Register that tracks each lot of tuna from vessel to can.

Image credit: Wild Planet

In the wake of last year’s impeachment saga and continued political turmoil, many of Brazil's political leaders view the country's ongoing social and economic chaos as the perfect opportunity to reverse policies implemented over the past decade.

NGOs say that anti-deforestation measures recently enacted by Brazil’s federal government are not only increasingly ignored, but the nation’s National Congress is also moving forward on more legislation that would eliminated protections on as many as 1.1 million hectares of Amazonian rain forests.

According to Greenpeace’s chapter in Brazil, the nation's capital Brasília introduced two more bills seeking to reduce or cancel conservation units established in the far northern state of Pará.

These moves come a month after Brazil said it would eliminate other conservation units, which total about 1 million hectares of forests, in the state of Amazonas. At the time, Greenpeace released aerial photographs it said indicated that those lands were being primed for development despite their status as protected areas.

Danicley de Aguiar, a campaigner with Greenpeace Brazil, was searing in his assessment of the Brazilian government's about-face on environmental conservation:

"By reducing Conservation Units, Brazil practically tears the Paris Agreement. There is no point in making an international commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and at the same time to end up with protected areas in Amazon.

"What we are seeing in Brazil, with measures to reduce Conservation Units and indigenous territories are not isolated issues, but rather a package of initiatives for the dismantling of environmental legislation in Brazil."

Greenpeace says the danger is that the legislation related to the lands in Pará was introduced as provisional measures: a tactic Brazil’s National Congress can use to move them ahead at a more rapid pace than a conventional legislative bill. A House committee has already approved the measures, which then means they will move to the entire House for a vote and then the country’s Senate. “The president is one of the authors of the proposals, so he will probably approve them,” a Greenpeace representative told TriplePundit in an email.

Brazil’s president, Michel Temer, has made it clear that the country’s powerful agribusiness interests will have more say in how the country conducts its environmental policy than under his predecessors: the impeached Dilma Rousseff and, before her, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

This legislation has emerged as Greenpeace and other environmental groups insist deforestation is on the upswing across Brazil after years of decline, with the loss of forests accelerating at a rate of 75 percent between 2012 and 2015. Earlier this month, the New York Times cited similar statistics, saying the loss of 2 million forest acres between August 2015 and July 2016 resulted in a 29 percent increase in deforestation.

Only a few years ago, publications including The Economist described the nation of 200 million as a global leader in the fight against climate change. But much of that country’s effort on climate change mitigation and forest preservation was also financed by foreign aid; and now some countries, including Norway, have reportedly said they will stop sending funds to Brazil if the country does not prove it can stop or slow this increased rate of deforestation. Investors have also insisted that companies in industries -- such as the soy and beef sectors, which have had longstanding links to deforestation -- do more to curb the lost of forests across Brazil.

But so far this year, both Brazil’s government and business community have been tone deaf to the international community’s concerns. Brazil’s meatpacking giant JBS, one of many large firms embroiled in the country’s political scandals, has been accused of knowingly purchasing cattle raised on illegally deforested lands for years. And in the name of budget deficit reduction and coping with the country’s worst economic crisis in 100 years, Brazil’s federal government announced earlier this month that it would reduce the size of its environment ministry’s budget by over half for the upcoming fiscal year.

Greenpeace says it is pushing back hard and insists that Brazil’s government reconsider turning its back on forest conservation. “It is disgusting how politicians in the pocket of industry and agribusiness are taking advantage of the spotlight on this scandal to slash protected areas of the Amazon rainforest," said Aguiar of Greenpeace Brazil. “These bills move Brazil in the opposite direction of the promises that were made for the Paris Agreement, of which Brazil is a signatory.”

Image credit: CIFOR/Flickr

U.S. President Donald Trump says his environmental policies and executive orders will save the estimated 77,000 coal industry jobs that remain in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government estimates the travel and tourism industry added $1.6 trillion to the economy in 2015, and supported anywhere from 5 million to 7.6 million jobs that year.

But while even energy industry leaders have acknowledged that coal jobs will not rebound no matter how many of Trump’s policies succeed, it is clear that the administration’s recent executive orders on the immigration front will hurt the American tourism industry.

The results will hit the bottom line of corporations such as Disney, which count on visitors walking through the turnstiles at their theme parks. But many local businesses in rural areas, catering to visitors who enjoy the recreational opportunities in U.S. national parks and public lands, could also be affected.

As the Washington Post reported, an analysis of data from the travel app Hopper shows demand for flights to the U.S. from around the world are on the decline – with the curious exception of Russia. According to the travel analytics firm Tourism Economics, 4.3 million fewer people could come to the U.S. this year, the economic fallout of which could result in $7.4 billion in lost revenues.

Next year could be even more difficult for the travel sector, with 6.3 million fewer tourists resulting in a financial hit of $11 billion. That means fewer citizens visiting Miami, which is an easy long weekend trip from northern South America; and fewer arrivals in San Francisco and New York, cities that have long welcomed both tourists and business travelers in large numbers. For the travel industry, which reeled after the 9/11 attacks for almost a decade -- only to recover since 2010 – the next few years could see more layoffs and local businesses closing.

The evidence suggests such a decline has already begun, with fewer travel arrangements made by both budget travelers and more well-heeled visitors. Youth travel organizations such as Hostelling International (HI) have seen a decrease in bookings, which HI attributes to young citizen’s trepidation over Trump and his travel bans. And in Tyson’s Corner, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., a Sheraton Hotel is offering a free Apple Watch to anyone who books at meeting at its conference center.

Even Canadians, most of whom live an easy drive from the U.S. border and are quick to visit either to shop, enjoy the outdoors or flee to Florida to escape winter, are increasingly canceling trips to the U.S. Wealthy Mexicans, who in the past flocked to mountain resorts such as Vail, Colorado, are also making alternative travel plans. Recently, a marketing survey found out that, across the board, travelers worldwide are saying the U.S. political climate makes them less inclined to visit – with the exception of China, though that research was undertaken well before last week’s snafu with United Airlines. And data from Newark Liberty International Airport revealed that bookings slumped by 7 percent as of last month.

Regardless of their political stance on Trump’s executive orders, many within the travel sector insist the larger problem is that the current administration is not bothering to make it clear that most visitors are still more than welcome to visit the U.S. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Arne Sorenson, CEO of Marriott International, said: “We are trying to encourage the administration to say: While we might be working on some of these other issue [such as security risks], we actually want to communicate a welcome to the rest of the world and encourage travel.”

But threats of extensive searches at the border, including the reported demands for cellphone and app passwords, are among the factors that are discouraging potential visitors from visiting the U.S. Many will respond in kind, and simply travel elsewhere -- which will make it a long summer for many tourism workers.

Image credit: Erwyn van der Meer/Flickr

The evolution of economies and consumption

Observers from pre-industrial times could only imagine the world-changing possibilities lying dormant in the pent-up energy of ancient rocks, or the remains of long-dead flora and fauna. Only a visionary few came close. For most, the health, wealth and material abundance made possible by an industrial economy was simply inconceivable.

But when that access was finally granted, things moved fast. From the spinning jenny to jet airplanes, moon rockets, instantaneous global communication and the sum total of recorded human knowledge available at the touch of a button.

That early observer, looking on in amazement at our brave new world, might understandably be tempted to think we have mastered our material universe. Any justification for such conceit belies the one aspect of industrial economics that remains hopelessly un-evolved. Since the time of the spinning jenny, the foundation of a linear take-and-make economy has changed little.

The exponential rise in human population and resource consumption since the start of the industrial revolution has pushed a linear economy to the breaking point.

While we may choose to deny it, the clues are all around us.

Stretched to the limit

As our reach grows, the risks inherent in a globalized linear economy are manifest. Resource and economic shocks reverberate across the globe. This increased vulnerability comes at a price. According to a World Economic Forum study, the real cost of natural goods has trended sharply upward since the turn of the century.

In the preface to Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains, WEF Senior Director Dominic Waughray writes: “Commodity prices overall rose by almost 150 percent from 2002 to 2010, erasing the real price declines of the last 100 years.”

In 2010, 65 billion tons of raw materials entered into the economy, most of it relatively quickly used up and ultimately headed out the other end: as a growing flow of waste streaming into the environment. Global resources, like forests and oceans, swallow an ever-bigger hit of the detritus.

If ignored, the miracle of latent energy, of our brave new world, becomes a curse. Meeting needs becomes subsumed by feeding demand. Citizens become consumers.

The sovereign consumer

Satisfying consumer demand makes the world go ‘round -- at least economically speaking. Consumer sovereignty remains a bedrock principle of modern mainstream economic theory.

Competing in a complex consumer-driven (or, more accurately, manipulated) economy only ups the ante for more unsustainable consumption and a global marketplace awash in products and packaging. Well-established research indicates that beyond a point all this consumption adds little to human well-being.

What is the point of all this production and consumption if it does not ultimately lead to human well-being on a healthy planet? How do we break the cycle?

Running in circles, aiming for circularity

Savvy business leaders, policymakers and citizen-consumers understand the restraints implicit in a linear economy. But change is hard, and you never know what the future holds.  

Sustainability standards such as GRI Standard make important inroads for rigorous transparency, measurement and reporting of non-financial, triple-bottom-line metrics. But where GRI’s protocols have evolved over nearly 20 years, adopting similar methodologies for closing the gap between resource inputs and waste outputs is in its infancy.

How do we translate the aspiration for a more circular, regenerative economy into real, hard numbers? It's the same old adage: Without a way to measure, how will we really know when we’re making any headway?  

Lucy Chamberlin highlighted this challenge in the Imperial College of London’s blog Aspects of Environmental Research in 2013, asking: “How do organizations know when the goods they have produced will reinforce a restorative or regenerative system?” Adrian Wain, a sustainability consultant and business advisor for UL EHS, concurs.

In terms of a standardized set of metrics for circularity,“there isn’t much out there,” Wain told TriplePundit in a recent interview. "There are very few people thinking about this yet." But that's not to say there isn't traction pushing it forward, aided by some of the brightest minds in the field. 

"It's a very exciting space," Wain told us. "I am glad to be working with some of the best thinkers on this, and we're making some good progress."

Laying the circular foundation

In Wain's view, real traction for developing measurable circular business methodologies began around 2015, arguably a banner year for sustainability in general. After Accenture released its Waste to Wealth report, the work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, companies like Phillips, H&M, Levis and many others decided circularity "is the direction of travel for us,” Wain said. Businesses are looking for direction, he told us, and we want to"help them on their journey."

"What I think they’re lacking is a speed gauge or sat nav. If a circular economy is your direction, how do you make sure you get there in the fastest and most efficient way. What kind of metrics can we put in place?”

The Circularity Indicators Project is the first big step forward in putting actionable circularity metrics in place. Developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Cambridge-based Granta, the project deploys the Material Circularity Index. On a scale from 0 to 1, the MCI measures how "restorative the material flows of a product or company are."

"It's impressive work," Wain said. "I've seen how they model it. I've seen all the formulas that feed into that number."

But it's just a beginning. It's still "a very abstract way of measuring [circularity] and not necessarily applicable to a business."

"We're at the point now where businesses like Granta who have a very deep materials expertise can tell you how circular your computer is from naught to 1," Wain explained. "But how do you look at a company like Dell, that might have 15,000 SKUs?"

Closing the gap

For businesses in the trenches, analyzing circularity with a single number like the MCI "isn't necessarily scalable and it's not viable," Wain argued. "It doesn't really tell them if you're at 0.8 (on the MCI scale) and you want to get to 1, what steps should you take? And that's what we're trying to figure out."

It's a work in progress. In terms of practical standards for measuring and reporting for material recovery, "a big gap" remains. Nor should the focus rest solely on materials recovery and reuse, Wain insisted.

Even though "the conversation is typically dominated by materials," a truly circular economy is about much more than reuse, he told 3p. "It's about digitization and servitization -- particularly the service-model piece."

Products as a service

What do we really need: a washing machine or clean clothes? A light bulb or light? A car or transportation? In each case, a circular economy suggests the latter.

Car-sharing services like Zipcar are already popular in many dense urban areas. The 'Pay-per-lux' lighting model, a collaborative effort between Phillips and Turntoo, is a case study for selling light as a service.

As for clean clothes, Wain asked: "How attached are you to your washing machine?" (personally, not very). In terms of products as a service in a circular economy, these are among the lowest hanging fruit.

"It's a utility, it's something that provides some function that we use in our day-to-day life." If Maytag changed its business model from selling washing machines to selling the service of clean clothes,"I think there would be very little friction from a consumer perspective," Wain said.

Xerox transformed its market to a service-based business -- a model Wain argues is duplicable for other businesses facing a changing marketplace: The customer retains the benefit of the machine without the headache of maintenance; the manufacturer gets the benefit of "massive parts re-harvesting." This lowers costs for both and changes a point-of-sale transaction to an ongoing relationship. Done right, everybody wins.

Instead of units sold, profitability is measured by the service the product provides. "You can think about maintenance and service as another type of [key performance indicator]," Wain told us.

"Can you measure the duration of time between service intervals? Can you, throughout the process, stretch that period of time so you go to client sites less frequently, reduce the cost of service sold, and therefore improve the performance of your circular economy products?"

White goods are one thing. But what about our personal devices? Even there, Wain sees potential. Even as technology companies like Apple are reluctant to let people poke around inside their devices and focus on selling the next generation in products, Apple has a stake in circular principles, Wain told us -- at least so far as their data centers and facilities are concerned.

"The real driver for Apple to create something that is more robust, more future proof is that the phone is merely a portal to a range of digital services that Apple monetizes."

In a "post-device world," Wain asked, "how can we just use analytics, applications, data to generate revenue, rather than selling a little device?"

"I'm interested to see how they play this one."

Building relationships, tree-huggers not required

The beauty of circular, relationship or service-based business models is the measurable efficacy for both customer and business, Wain explained.

Retailer H&M embraces circularity, and the key is building customer relationships. Its "recycle your clothes" program encourages brand loyalty by offering discounts on new purchases if customers bring in their old clothes for recycling (no matter the condition or brand). H&M benefits from material recovery: Thus far, enough material has been diverted from landfill to produce "100 million T-shirts," the company says.

But who's counting?

“This is an important point about the way I see circular," Wain said of the model's benefits for both companies and customers. "The better deal for the environment is, somewhat, third in this arrangement. And that’s the reason [the circular economy] is going to succeed."

“I think in an increasingly noisy marketplace, that adds a lot of value. It really is a better deal for the customer, for the business and for the environment.”

“If you just actually make the product better, make the service better, and keep that environmental stuff hidden out of view -- even though it’s a massive part of it -- then you get traction and you get scalability.”

The narrative for a circular economy isn't about becoming a tree-hugger. All the "talk about a preference for sustainable products" or the "additional price elasticity for sustainable products" won't mean much if the centuries-old linear model of resource consumption doesn't evolve into our 21st-century reality, Wain said.

"It's a very powerful way for our economy to grow and for our environment to improve." It is the path to prosperity.

Victims of our own success?

Assessing the wisdom of the entire human endeavor is far beyond the scope of this article. It is, however, safe to say we are a clever lot. As a species, we not only survive, but thrive -- staving off the dark night of a Hobbesian earthly existence that is “nasty, brutish and short.” Striving for a better life is what makes us human. The liberation of energy, labor and wealth from fossil fuels is undeniable -- for many at least, but certainly not all. Nor will it last.

Our linear, globalized, carbon-based energy economy has been so successful that we are now held in its grip, mesmerized into thinking it will go on forever, but without an adequate long-term plan for how to do it. It distorts our definition of prosperity by placing an endless linear quest for "growth" central to human intent and interaction with the natural world.

To challenge the efficacy of infinite economic growth is suspect, even heretical. We operate with an assumption of ever more material throughput at one end and, when we're done with it, the planet’s ability to absorb the waste at the other.

A good business leader understands risk. An inspiring statesman knows how to lead. A skilled policymaker makes real the methods the will effect change. It's circular process.

We approach the third decade of the 21st century at a crossroads and challenge. We learn how to thrive into a prosperous future or trot down the same old path that is, in the end, nasty, brutish, and short.

---

If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it. —John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 1848

---

Images credits: of Ellen MacArthur Foundation; Gavin Brogan, courtesy Flickr

Almost 30 years ago, James Hansen made headlines when he told a congressional committee he was 99 percent certain that warming trends across the world were not a fluke, but were due to carbon dioxide and other gasses building up in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Back then, he was the director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Over the years, Hansen became a leading climate activist, revered by many, yet reviled by others for his tactics. He’s now an adjunct professor with Columbia University’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. And Hansen continues to speak out on climate change risks, especially sea-level rise, which he says could be even worse than originally projected.

But Hansen says there is a way to push climate action forward, which from his point of view is a no-brainer. He recently embraced a proposal by GOP elders to implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would pay dividends to every legal resident in the U.S.

In a recent interview with Scientific American, Hansen made it clear that U.S. President Donald Trump’s complete dismissal of climate science is hardly the way forward. But at the same time, he criticized the former Barack Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for being too focused on regulation and, overall, simply ineffective.

GOP elders have suggested a starting price of $40 per ton of carbon. Hansen suggests $55 a ton, which would generate a dividend of approximately $1,000 per legal resident and a maximum of $3,000 for a family with two or more children. According to his logic:

“This [carbon tax] actually stimulates the economy. If it’s a tax taken by the government, it makes the government bigger and it depresses the economy. That’s why I object to the Democrats as much as to the Republicans. The only way the public will allow a carbon fee is if you give the money to them — people don’t want to see the price of gasoline at the pump going up.”

Hansen insisted during his talk with Annie Sneed of Scientific American that there really is no other solution to mitigate future climate change risks. If fossil fuels continue to be available as a cheap source of fuel, they will keep being burned. And the economic reality here in the U.S. is that consumers have always balked at paying higher fuel and utility prices.

Furthermore, Hansen made it clear that his vision of a more resilient world is not one limited to relying on solar and wind power. Nuclear power, he insisted, has to be part of this equation; in his view, it has done much to reduce carbon emissions as well as illnesses and premature deaths from pollution. And as emerging economic powerhouses such as China and India continue to grow, there is no way they could phase out coal consumption without including nuclear as part of their energy portfolios.

Based on the Trump administration’s executive orders during its first three months, it is doubtful the White House will consider a carbon tax. When GOP leaders such as George Shultz and James Baker presented their proposal to the White House, they did not meet with the president himself, but with his chief economic advisor Gary Cohn. That meeting so far has reportedly succeeded only in fomenting more tension in the White House.

As profiled by Politico, although Cohn was reportedly open to the idea, others within Trump’s inner circle viewed it as a non-starter. And furthermore, even if Trump suddenly supported some version of a carbon tax (which is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, considering his policy reversals over the past week), a vehemently anti-tax-in-any-form Congress would most likely kill the idea.

Nevertheless, Hansen is steadfast with his assessment that the risks of climate change must be made clear to the American public. But despite the politicization of climate change in D.C. and in state capitals across the U.S., he said scientists must continue to be clear about the science – and not fall into the trap of politicizing it -- if climate action will have any hope of advancing, or at least not losing too much ground, over the next four years.

Image credit: Chris Bently/Flickr

While Christmas, Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day top the list as the biggest holidays for spending, maybe Kelley Blue Book’s timely ranking of the most eco-friendly cars can persuade shoppers to open up their checkbooks right in time for Earth Day.

Editors at Kelley Blue Book, a California-based vehicle valuation and automotive research company, recently released their annual list of top hybrid, electric and plug-in hybrid cars under $40,000.

Here is a breakdown of which car manufacturers appeared most on the lists comprising of 20 cars:

• Toyota: 5


• Hyundai: 4


• Kia: 4


• Chevrolet: 3


• Audi: 1


• Honda: 1


• Nissan: 1


• Volkswagen: 1

Last year’s ranking of 10 Best Hybrid Cars featured cars under $30,000. The price range was upped to $40,000 for this year’s list, but only two cars exceed that starting price. The first is Honda’s only car in the field of 20, a 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid that narrowly creeped above $30,000, and the other is a three-row seating 2017 Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

Electric and hybrid cars are becoming increasingly popular, and as a result, automakers are producing more versatile cars that are both stylish and green.

“With each new model year, there are more ‘green car’ choices than ever before,” Jack R. Nerad, executive editorial director and executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book, said in a press statement.

“Whether you are looking for something that stands out as visually unique to proclaim your environmental friendliness, or if you prefer your vehicle to blend in with the more traditionally gas-powered crowd, automakers now offer several vehicles with a variety of eco-friendly powertrain options to accommodate both lifestyle and budget needs of just about any buyer.”

The lists come from what Kelley Blue Book calls its "expert editors" and combines starting average price, fuel mileage and power. Let's take a look at the lists.

10 best hybrid cars under $40,000

5 best electric cars under $40,000

5 best plug-in hybrid cars under $40,000

Photo by mariordo59/Flickr

“I would have never tried that in my electric car!”

That was the surprised reaction I received from an all-electric Nissan Leaf owner after I described my drive in the Chevy Bolt over California's Santa Rosa Mountain Range from Oceanside into Palm Desert. That climb is beyond the range of all electric cars except the $100,000 Tesla Model S.

I had just done it with a car costing $30,000 (after tax credits) while carrying two passengers, some day bags and a dog.

Driving a Bolt over the Santa Rosa Mountain Range

Mountain driving is the ultimate electric car challenge. So I decided to test-drive the Bolt by driving the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. These mountains have a 7,000-feet maximum elevation. The road I would take reaches over 3,000 feet.

My test-drive began on a four-lane road driving east toward the mountains from Oceanside, California. This road has a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit that was only briefly achieved due to a steady lineup of traffic lights.

This type of driving is where the Bolt feels most comfortable. Its electric motor easily glided through the stop-and-go traffic. Its regenerative braking system added electricity back into the battery with each slow-down and stop. From my reading of the digital gauge, it appeared that for every 10 miles traveled, the battery only lost two miles of driving range in these conditions.

I then merged onto an interstate highway and set the cruise control for 72 miles per hour to keep up with traffic. The Bolt's range was dropping, but nothing more disconcerting than driving a gasoline car at over 70 miles per hour.

At Temecula, I turned off the interstate. This desert town has exploded into a suburb that enables commutes north toward Los Angeles or south toward San Diego. Driving through town is a stop-and-go process past blocks of fast-food restaurants, big-box stores and strip malls. The Bolt was back in its driving sweet spot of recharging the battery with every slow-down or stop.

After a few miles, Temecula’s four-lane road narrowed to two. Suburbia was left behind. Ahead was desert wilderness with stark rock fields and short, thin trees shaped by the wind. But on this drive, spring was in its full beauty with wildflowers vibrantly splashing yellows and purples against the grey and brown landscape.

The Bolt handled this two-lane foothills climb like a sports car. The electric motor provided plenty of acceleration. The regenerative drive system enabled quick handling of curves.

Then came the mountain climb portion of the trip. The Bolt easily conquered the steep climb. But we paid for this performance with significant electricity consumption. I entered the mountain climb with about a 150-mile driving range. At the summit, I had a 100 miles left on the battery.

The descent into Palm Desert was a technological marvel. The Bolt gained driving range as the regenerative braking system captured the energy from strong braking to recharge the battery. During the entire drive down the mountain, I couldn’t stop watching the digital dashboard’s real-time display of increasing driving range. More than once, my wife had to ask me to stop being a geek and watch the road. By the time the Bolt reached the desert floor, it had regained 30 miles of driving range.

After a wonderful day of driving to art fairs, and then lunch in Old Town La Quinta, I took the Bolt to a recharging station in anticipation of driving back up the mountain. Recharging took less than 30 minutes using a 50 DC station located inside a city park. It was at the recharging station where I talked to other electric car drivers and heard their amazement over my drive from Oceanside to Palm Desert.

Driving the Bolt is like driving a gasoline car, but better

The future has now arrived with the Chevy Bolt.

The Bolt looks like a sedan but drives like an urban sports cars. Stop-and-go traffic actually recharges the battery! The seats are very comfortable for four passengers. The trunk is surprisingly large. The air conditioning is cold. The sound system is enjoyable. And all of this is delivered with zero tail pipe emissions.

California’s extensive recharging station network allows the Bolt to travel as broadly as a gasoline car. Yes, DC recharging time is about 30 minutes compared to a typical 15-minute gasoline refueling stop. Plus, 30 minutes of recharging only adds about 90 miles of range. So a day trip of over 200 miles is slower.

But the bottom line is that the Bolt is now an affordable, fun and zero-emissions alternative to a gasoline car.

It is by far and away the superior urban vehicle.

And once our country finally commits to a national grid of super fast recharging stations, it will be the superior technology wherever you drive it.

Image courtesy of the author